Chiasmus in the Text of Isaiah

Introduction to 1QIsa^a

The Isaiah scrolls are significant finds, signaling one of the most remarkable archaeological discoveries of the twentieth century. The Qumran caves, located near the northwestern area of the Dead Sea, yielded twenty-one copies of the book of Isaiah—two from cave 1, eighteen from cave 4, and one from cave 5. An additional copy (making a total of twenty-two copies) of Isaiah was discovered south of Qumran in a cave at Wadi Murabba‘at. Scholars have labeled these scrolls as follows: 1QIsa^a, 1QIsa^b (1Q8), 4QIsa^a-r (4Q55–4Q69b), and 5QIsa (5Q3). All twenty-two copies of Isaiah are written in Hebrew. Most of these scrolls are severely damaged and fragmented, owing to long-term exposure to the elements.

1QIsa^a, or the Great Isaiah Scroll, is perhaps the best-known biblical scroll found at Qumran. It consists of seventeen pieces of sheepskin sewn together into a single scroll and shows signs of being well used before it was stored away.¹ The scroll comprises fifty-four columns of text that vary in width and average about twenty-nine lines of text per column. Measuring almost twenty-four feet in length and about ten inches in height, 1QIsa^a is the longest of the Qumran biblical scrolls. Through paleographic analysis of the Hebrew script, scholars date the scroll to about 125 BCE. In contrast, the other Isaiah texts from Qumran, as fragmented and incomplete manuscripts, may slightly distort understandings of Isaiah’s textual history.

1QIsa^a presents a view of what biblical manuscripts looked like at the end of the Second Temple era, before the stabilization of the Hebrew text after the first century CE. Unlike MT, with its consonantal and vocalization framework and system of notes, accents, and versification, 1QIsa^a features handwritten manuscripts without vocalization or accents. Additionally, 1QIsa^a contains interlinear or marginal corrections, scribal marks and notations, a different paragraphing system, and special morphological and orthographic features.

1QIsa^a, which predates by approximately one thousand years the medieval copies of MT, expands understandings of the textual history of the Bible; as such, it is an important text for both academic and popular audiences. It helps to fill gaps of knowledge with regard to scribal conventions and styles, orthography, paleography, scribal interjections, textual divergences, and other aspects of biblical scrolls from the late Second Temple era.

Its paragraphing system and intra-textual divisions are unlike those of MT. 1QIsa^a represents a significant find because it includes all sixty-six chapters of Isaiah, except for minor lacunae, enabling scholars to conduct a complete study of this text. In contrast, the other Isaiah texts from Qumran, as fragmented and incomplete manuscripts, may slightly distort understandings of Isaiah’s textual history.

The scroll has a number of scribal interventions, where the copyist or a subsequent scribe corrected readings or entered notations between the lines and in the margins. In addition, 1QIsa^a has a large number of variant readings when compared to MT, most of them minor. Many of these divergences deal with orthography, and taken as a whole, 1QIsa^a displays a fuller orthography than MT, meaning the scroll has more consonants in certain words. Some of the scroll’s textual variants result from accidental errors that occurred during the transmission of the text by one or more generations of copyists. These include haplography, dittography, graphic similarity, misdivision of words, interchange of letters, transposition of texts, and so forth. These errors also occur among other biblical scrolls and manuscripts during the last two centuries before the Common Era, and perhaps earlier, although a paucity of textual examples from earlier periods prevents a thorough investigation.

The scribe(s) who copied the Isaiah scroll from a master copy (Vorlage) had a free or liberal approach to the text, characterized by exegetical or editorial pluses, morphological smoothing and updating, harmonizations, phonetic variants, and modernizations of terms. There is also evidence that a well-intended scribe simplified the text for an audience that no longer understood classical Hebrew forms. His editorial tendencies resulted in a popularization of certain terms, some from Aramaic,² that reflected the language of Palestine in his time period. It is because of these modernizations that some scholars have concluded that 1QIsa^a was a nonofficial, popular, or vulgar text.

Notwithstanding 1QIsa^a’s variant readings, it shares many textual affinities with the proto-Masoretic text. The scroll also has more than two dozen readings where it agrees with the Septuagint (LXX) versus MT. Of all the Qumran Isaiah scrolls, 1QIsa^a displays more textual agreements with the LXX, but this may be due to the fact that both 1QIsa^a and LXX date to approximately the same period and both demonstrate a free rendering, in some of their readings, of their Vorlagen.

Furthermore, the Isaiah scrolls have greatly impacted our understanding of the textual history of the Bible, and in recent decades, Bible translation committees have incorporated a number of these readings into their translations.³ For instance, Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, published by the Jewish Publication Society, occasionally utilizes variant readings from 1QIsa^a in its English translation or refers to them in footnotes. One such example occurs in Isa 21:8: MT reads lion (אריה); 1QIsa^a has the watcher (or, the seer) (הראה), “and the watcher cried, My lord, I stand continually upon the watchtower all day, and I am stationed at my post all night.” Because lion and the watcher in the Hebrew language are graphically similar, a copyist likely made a simple error when he copied this word.

Another example noted in Tanakh is located in Isa 33:8, where MT reads cities (ערים) versus 1QIsa^a’s witnesses (עדים), again an example of graphic similarity. The reading of 1QIsa^a corresponds well with the parallelism, “A covenant has been renounced, witnesses rejected.” Isaiah 14:4 sets forth a third example, one accepted by a number of modern translations, including Tanakh, the New International Version, and the New English Bible. In this verse 1QIsa^a reads mrhbh, meaning “oppression.” This fits the parallelistic structure, “How is oppression ended! How is the taskmaster vanished.” Tanakh notes at the bottom of the page, “The traditional reading [of MT] madhebah is of unknown meaning.”

Methodology

The following items constitute, in the briefest of terms, my methodology for preparing the lemmas and listing the textual variants.

1. Paleography. The opening task is to determine the correct readings of the Qumran Isaiah texts. This is conducted by closely examining the leather scrolls themselves, when possible, as well as high-resolution photographs and images. When I examined 1QIsa^a on three different occasions, I had particular concerns about the scroll’s shadows, creases, wrinkles, folds, darkened areas, flaked-off leather, holes in the leather, and the like; such items may or may not appear in the photographs. In addition to examining 1QIsa^a, I accessed high-resolution images of the same manuscript from the collection of first generation negatives held by the Ancient Biblical Manuscripts Center (ABMC), Claremont, California, including the PAM series and those belonging to John Trever.

2. Transcriptional Text. Based on the efforts to determine the correct paleography of the Qumran Isaiah scrolls, I produced transcriptions of the Hebrew words; in doing so, I consulted the Parry Qimron edition of the Great Isaiah Scroll and DJD 32.

3. Word-Word Correspondences. Determining word-word correspondences among the Qumran Isaiah scrolls and MT, and then lemmatizing the words, proved to be a complex and prolonged task; this is because many supposed textual variants are no more than orthographic deviations. Divergences consisting of the letters ʾālep, hê, wāw, and yôd especially mark orthographic deviations, but not always.

The word-word correspondences are structured as follows: first the Isaianic chapter and verse; then a MT reading followed by witnesses that affirm MT; then follows a vertical separator stroke (= |); then a textual variant of one or more of the Qumran witnesses; and the entry closes with a solid, midline circle (= •). My approach in the lemma line is to place MT first, followed by other Hebrew witnesses, then the versions. This was a methodological decision and was not designed to suggest that MT has the primary, primitive, or correct reading.

4. Reconstructed Texts. This paper does not include divergences from Qumran readings that have been fully reconstructed (i.e., a reading fully enclosed in brackets); but it does include partial reconstructions.

5. Parallel Registers in the Bible. This paper includes the readings from blocks of texts that are parallel to Isaiah, most notably Isa 2:2–4 // Mic 4:1–3 and Isa 36–38 // 2 Kgs 18–20.

6. MT Ketib-Qere System. This paper examines the ketib-qere system of Masoretic type texts of Isaiah in light of 1QIsa^a and other Qumran witnesses of Isaiah; therefore, both MT^ket and MT^qere are set forth in the lemma lines in association with Qumran entries. Based on my study published in 2010,⁴ it is my position that the majority of ketib-qere variants of the book of Isaiah are not material variants that reflect a different Vorlage or textual tradition; rather they are analogical readings, divergences that reveal different orthographic systems, or examples of archaic, dialectical, or phonological textual updating. In fact, beyond the qere perpetuum readings and three examples of euphemisms (13:16; 36:12 bis), variations between ketib-qere are, for the most part, from the grouping ʾālep, hê, wāw, and/or yôd.

7. Linguistic Analysis. This endeavor constitutes another complex set of tasks because the effort requires various determinations, when appropriate, with regard to orthography, lexicon, morphology, syntax, grammar, etc. Here the lexicons proved to be helpful, as well as multiple publications (see individual entries plus the bibliography).

8. Hapax Legomena. Biblical Hebrew scholars in the modern era utilize the Greek expression hapax legomenon (“once said”) to identify unique words in the Hebrew Bible. Of the approximately 1,200–1,500 hapax legomena in the HB (the number varies according to scholarly approaches),⁵ about nine hundred are decipherable, because they possess known and established roots. Approximately four hundred, however, are difficult to interpret. In this paper I deal with examples of hapax legomena when they exist as deviations in MT Isaiah and the Qumran Isaiah scrolls that attest them (i.e., 1QIsa^a, 1QIsa^b, 4QIsa^a, 4QIsa^b, 4QIsa^c, 4QIsa^d, 4QIsa^f, and 4QIsa^g). In 2015, I conducted a methodological examination of hapax legomena in Isaiah’s text, which includes an analysis of the Qumran Isaiah Scrolls (published in the Peter Flint memorial volume).⁶

Chiasmus in Isaiah’s Text

We will now examine several examples of chiasms in Isaiah’s text. These examples were selected randomly; other examples could be cited. I will place textual variants in brackets. In this section I will examine only the textual variants that present possible deviations that impact the structure or clarity of one or more of the particular chiastic elements.

Isaiah 2:3–5

2:3 אֶל־הַר־יְהוׇה MT 4QIsa^e ([אל הר [יהוה) Mic 4:2 LXX Tg. Syr. Vulg. | > 1QIsa^a • וְיֹרֵנוּ MT 4QIsa^e (MT Mic 4:2) LXX Tg. Syr. Vulg. | ווירונ 1QIsa^a (LXX Mic 4:2) •

אֶל־הַר־יְהוׇה—The expression “to the mountain of the Lord” (אֶל־הַר־יְהוׇה) was omitted in 1QIsa^a by means of haplography, triggered by the prepositions אֶל . . . אֶל The expression, which has the support of three Hebrew witnesses—MT 4QIsa^e Micah 4:2—as well the versions (LXX Tg. Syr. Vulg.), is essential to the chiastic structure owing to the fact that “of the Lord” corresponds with the same expression in the final line.

וְיֹרֵנוּ–MT, with the support of 4QIsa^e (MT Mic 4:2) LXX Tg. Syr. Vulg., has a singular verb (via √ירה) “and he will teach us,” versus the plural reading of 1QIsa^a (וירונו via √ירה) “and they will teach us.” Brownlee posits, as a possibility, that the plural reading of 1QIsa^a (וירונו) was impacted by the Qumran Community’s belief that “they [the priests] may teach us of His ways.” For this position, Brownlee draws support from 4QpIsa^a 11:3–4 and 1QS ix, 7 (see Mic 4:2).⁷ For a second point of view (and more likely), Kutscher postulates that the Qumran “scribe misplaced the wāw by mistake.”⁸ The pronoun “they” in the expression “they will teach us” lacks an antecedent and signifies an error and does not provide support to the chiastic structure.

2:4 וְהֹוכִיחַ MT 4QIsa^e LXX Tg. Syr. Vulg. | וה והוכיח 1QIsaª • לְעַמִּים MT LXX Syr. Vulg. | לעמים בין 1QIsaª (p.m.) לעמים | לְגֹויִם Mic 4:3 •

וְהֹוכִיחַ—The odd reading of וה והוכיח in 1QIsa^a may be explained as follows: the scribe wrote the first two characters of וְהֹוכִיחַ at the end of line 11 (col. 2); then he perceived that writing the whole word would extend too far beyond the vertical ruling, so he inscribed וְהֹוכִיחַ at the beginning of the next line (line 12). For three other examples of this phenomenon in 1QIsa^a, see 8:2 (col. 7, lines 19–20), 49:2 (col. 40, line 29), and 49:11 (col. 41, lines 10–11). See also Tov’s study.⁹

לְעַמִּים—The p.m. of 1QIsa^a (והוכיח בין) represents a rare reading, attested once in the HB (Gen 31:37; cf. Job 9:33); but the preposition has been deleted and the lāmed added interlinearly, conforming to MT and the corresponding passage Mic 4:3 (וְהֹוכִיחַ לְגֹויִם). Initially the copyist of 1QIsa^a had written בין, impacted by בין located three words earlier, an obvious error. With regard to the ordering of גוים and עמים, Mic 4:3 deviates from MT and 1QIsa^a by placing עמים first followed by גוים.

Isaiah 6:7

6:7וְחַטׇּאתְךָ MT | וחטאותיך 1QIsa^a LXX •

וְחַטׇּאתְךָ —MT Isa 6:7b of MT comprises a chiastic structure with two singular nouns, each with an attached second masculine singular pronominal suffix, and two third person verbs: וְסׇר עֲוֹנֶךָ וְחַטׇּאתְךָ תְּכֻפׇּר (“and will be turned aside your iniquity and your sin will be atoned”). 1QIsa^a has a plural noun וחטאותיך (“and your sins”) that lacks correspondence with the singular noun (“iniquity”) in the chiasmus; perhaps the copyist inadvertently assimilated the plural from שְׂפׇתֶיךָ (“your lips”), a word that is located in the first bicolon of verse 7. But compare LXX, which also attests the plural “sins.”

Isaiah 6:10

6:10 הַשְׁמֵן MT LXX s / | השמ 1QIsaª • יִשְׁמׇע MT 4QIsa^f Syr.(vid) Vulg. | ישמעו 1QIsaª LXX Tg. Vulg.^mss • וּלְבׇבֹו MT s / | בלבבו 1QIsaª | ובלבבו 4QIsa^f MT^mss | καὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ LXX | וּבלִיבְהוֹן Tg. •

הַשְׁמֵן—Some critics approach the reading in 1QIsa^a (השמ, a hipʿil verb via √שׁמם “to be desolate, be appalled”) versus MT (הַשְׁמֵן, a hipʿil verb via √שׁמן “to make fat”) as a vario lectio.¹⁰ Kutscher, for one, suggests “the scribe found it difficult to understand the verb שמן in conjunction with לב, whereas שמם, which is found over a 100 times, was more intelligible to him.”¹¹ Evans (following Brownlee¹²) sees the scroll’s reading as a “deliberate scribal alteration,”¹³ reading השמ as a hipʿil imperative from √שמם “make desolate/make appalled.” Thus Evans translates: “Make the heart of his people appalled (at evil).” Evans summarizes that “The effect of these variants [in Isa 6:9–10] is to redirect the entire thrust of the Isaianic passage. The passage no longer proclaims a word of judgment aimed at promoting and intensifying spiritual obduracy; rather, its purpose is to warn and aid the elect [i.e., the Qumran community] in protecting themselves from evil.”¹⁴

With regard to the elements of the chiastic structure, one could argue for either MT or 1QIsa^a’s reading. But there is another possibility that explains the deviation in 1QIsa^a: perhaps the copyist of 1QIsa^a made a simple error by failing to copy the final nûn. It is a fact that the copyist occasionally utilized a medial mêm in the final position, but in the majority of cases he wrote a final mêm.

יִשְׁמׇע–Now I will address the second deviation of consequence in this text. Verse 10 consists of a chiasmus that frames the following anatomical parts—heart, ears, eyes, eyes, ears, and heart. A verb accompanies each of the six body parts. The first three verbs are hipʿil imperatives and the next three are qal imperfects. In MT, all six verbs are put forward as singular verbs. However, a copyist of 1QIsa^a made a mistake by writing one of the verbs as a plural, “and hear” (ישמעו). At some point during the transmission of the text of Isaiah, the original read ישמע ובלבבו (see discussion immediately below), but a copyist created an error by means of a dittogram, בלבבוו וישמע. A subsequent copyist either omitted the wāw conjunction via haplography or he corrected his manuscript according to another manuscript tradition.

וּלְבׇבֹו—The Hebrew witnesses provide three different readings: וּלְבׇבֹולוּ (MT), בלבבו (1QIsa^a), and ובלבבו (4QIsa^f). 4QIsa^f’s reading, with both the conjunctive wāw and the preposition bêt, corresponds to the pattern of the other comparable elements in the chiastic structure, namely בעיניו and ובאזניו, thus reading “lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart.” The preposition bêt of 1QIsa^a, too, correlates with the bêt of בעיניו and באזניו. These correspondences may indicate primary readings; or, alternatively, a harmonization with the surrounding text. See also the discussion immediately above.

Isaiah 11:4

11:4 > MT | יומת רשע 1QIsa^a • יׇמִית MT LXX | יומת 1QIsa^a | יֹמוֹת 4QIsa^c •

>–1QIsa^a has יומת רשע, encircled with deletion dots. MT lacks the reading. The scribe assimilated these two words from the same expression that is found three words later.

יׇמִית—Isaiah 11:4b features a chiastic passage, for which MT presents two corresponding hipʿil imperfect verbs: “but he will smite [וְהִכׇּה] the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips will he slay [יׇמִית] the wicked.” For the fourth line of the structure, 1QIsa^a (יומת) has a hopʿal imperfect third masculine singular, “[the wicked] will be killed”; as does 4QIsa^c with its qal imperfect third masculine singular, “[the wicked] will die.” The deviations of 1QIsa^a and 4QIsa^c may have arisen owing to scribal carelessness or to the graphic similarity of the qal, hipʿil, and hopʿal forms. MT’s verb supports the chiastic elements of the verse.

Isaiah 11:8

11:8 מְאוּרַת MT 4QIsa^c | מאורות 1QIsa^a | κοίτην LXX • צִפְעֹונִי MT Tg. Syr. Vulg. | צפעונים 1QIsa^a 4QIsa^c LXX • הׇדׇה MT 1QIsa^a 4QIsa^b | יהדה 4QIsa^c •

מְאוּרַת . . . צִפְעֹונִי—In this chiastic structure, MT has the singular מְאוּרַת צִפְעֹונִי (“den of the viper”) versus the plural of 1QIsa^a מאורות צפעונים (“dens of the vipers”). MT’s singular provides a better correspondence to the expression “hole of the adder.” The structure, therefore, reads: “And the nursing babe will delight on the hole of the adder, and on the den of the viper the weaned child will put his hand.” Compare also the deviations at 59:5 (צִפְעֹונִי MT 1QIsa^b | צפעונים 1QIsa^a LXX). The mechanism that serves to explain the deviations is unknown.

הׇדׇה—Already in 1912, Gray provided three reasons why the reading הׇדׇה is “doubtful.” His first is that “הדה would be the only occurrence in the poem of a pf. tense, and this remains suspicious.”¹⁵ Roberts, too, prefers the imperfect verb (יהדה) of 4QIsa^c versus the perfect (MT, 1QIsa^a, 4QIsa^b).¹⁶ One could argue in favor of MT, 1QIsa^a, and 4QIsa^b; however, a copyist of 4QIsa^c may have added the yôd to יהדה, possibly influenced by the previous word (ידו), which also begins with yôd. But despite Gray’s objection, הׇדׇה corresponds well with וְשִׁעֲשַׁע, making the morphological values of the two A lines correspond.

Isaiah 13:16

13:16 תִּשׇּׁגַלְנׇה MT^ket 4QIsa^a ([תשג]ל֯[נה) Syr. Vulg. | תִּשׇּׁכַבְנׇה MT^qere 1QIsa^a Tg.(vid) | ἕξουσιν LXX •

The chiasmus features two nipʿal imperfect plural verbs (lines A), two masculine plural pronominal suffixes (“their”), and two plural nouns (“houses” and “wives”) (lines B).

תִּשׇּׁגַלְנׇה—MT^ket and 4QIsa^b read the verb שׁגל (תִּשׇּׁגַלְנׇה, “they will be violated”). 4QIsa^a also apparently reads [תשג]ל֯[נה. MT^qere and 1QIsa^a read the verb שכב (תשכבנה, “they will be lain with”); MT^qere and 1QIsa^a present a euphemistic reading because lie down does not necessarily imply force, versus שׁגל. According to b. Megillah 25b: “Our rabbis taught: wherever an indelicate expression is written in the Torah, we substitute a more polite one in reading. <Thus for> תשׁגלנה, ‘he shall enjoy (?) her,’ <we read> יִשׁגלנה, ‘he shall lie with her.’”¹⁷ The same MT^ket/MT^qere is found in Deut 28:30; Jer 3:2; Zech 14:2. For a discussion of תִּשׇּׁגַלְנׇה/תִּשׇּׁכַבְנׇה in light of other euphemistic expressions, see Ginsburg.¹⁸ The primary reading is likely שׁגל (“to be violated”), which accords with plunder (i.e., to take something by force) in the chiastic structure.

Isaiah 14:25

14:25 מֵעֲלֵיהֶם MT LXX | מעליכמה 1QIsa^a • שִׁכְמֹו MT | שכמכה 1QIsa^a •

מֵעֲלֵיהֶם . . . שִׁכְמֹו—Isa 14:25b forms a chiasmus: “will be turned aside from them his yoke, and his burden from his shoulder will be turned aside.” Note that the verbs וְסׇר and יׇסוּר (both √סור) frame the chiasmus, with עֻלֹּו (“his yoke”) and וְסֻבֳּלֹו (“his burden”) serving as pivotal units. One would expect the pronominal suffixes of the words מֵעֲלֵיהֶם and שִׁכְמֹו, belonging to MT, to harmonize, but they do not. But compare several versions (LXX^mss Tg. Syr. Vulg.), which read plural suffix שכמם, agreeing with מֵעֲלֵיהֶם.¹⁹ 1QIsa^a deviates with its second person plural suffix (מעליכמה “from you”) and its second person singular suffix (שכמכה “your shoulder”). The scroll may have been impacted by שׁכמך and צוארך (both second m. sg. suffixes), two words belonging to a similar reading in 10:27, “his burden will be turned aside from your shoulder and his yoke from upon your neck” (יסור סבלו מעל שׁכמך ועלו מעל צוארך).

Isaiah 29:14

29:14 וּבִינַת MT LXX(vid) | ובינות 1QIsa^a •

וּבִינַת —MT has the singular, “and the understanding of.” 1QIsa^a records the plural ובינות, “and the understandings of,” but the plural lacks alignment with singular verb (תסתתר). MT’s reading works well as it is, preferred by Wildberger.²⁰ Furthermore, 1QIsa^a’s plural בינות does not accord with the singular חָכְמַת in the chiasmus.

Isaiah 34:5–8

34:5 רִוְּתׇה MT LXX | תראה 1QIsa^a •

רִוְּתׇה—MT presents the lectio difficilior (√רוה “to be saturated, to drink”), versus 1QIsa^a’s תראה (√ראה “to see”), nipʿal, translated as “For my sword will appear.” With regard to the scroll’s reading, Kutscher proposes that the scribe did not know the verb √רוה.²¹ But if the scribe did not know √רוה, why did he correctly use it two verses later (see v. 7)? It is remotely possible that the scribe borrowed language from another passage (i.e., Jer 14:13; Ezek 33:3, 6), where חֶרֶב (“sword”) and √ראה (“to see”) are collocated. However, one should also consider that Targum’s reading of תִתגְלֵי (“my sword will be revealed”) is closer in meaning to תראה (“my sword will appear”) than is רִוְּתׇה (“my sword is saturated”). Based on a line in Jer 46:10 (“and the sword will devour, and it will be satiated and made drunk with their blood”) (וְאׇכְלׇה חֶרֶב וְשׇׂבְעׇה וְרׇוְתׇה מִדׇּמׇם), a reading that is similar to the one under discussion, one can argue for the primacy of MT’s reading; we observe also that MT has the support of LXX, Vulg., and Syr.; but contrast Watts, who states that 1QIsa^a and Tg. “may be more nearly correct” than MT.²² So also, Driver, based on the difficulty of the reading of MT as well as the variant reading of the Targum, states emphatically that “the Scroll’s reading can, indeed must, be accepted without hesitation.”²³

The reading here, then is indeterminate, with textual critics making arguments for the acceptance of both readings, “to be saturated” and “to appear.”

Isaiah 40:12

40:12 מַיִם MT LXX | מי ים 1QIsa^a • בַּזֶּרֶת MT LXX(vid) | בזרתו 1QIsa^a Syr. •

מַיִם—The first textual variant pertains to a possible fusion of two words, reading “waters” (מים MT), or the diatomy, “waters of the sea” (מי ים 1QIsa^a).²⁴ Tov holds that “the reading of 1QIsa^a is preferable because of the parallel hemistich (‘and gauged the skies with a span.’”²⁵ McKenzie, too, prefers the scroll’s reading.²⁶ Brownlee, with a slight reservation, determines 1QIsa^a to be the original reading,²⁷ contra Orlinsky, who emphatically states that “מי ים is only an erroneous reading.”²⁸ On the grounds that the poet intended assonance to be read (“מים ושמים in MT is surely intentional”), Baltzer holds that MT’s reading is primary.²⁹ Cf. also Isaiah 24:14, where LXX has the equivalent of מי ים “the water of the sea” (τὸ ὕδωρ τῆς θαλάσσης). As pertaining to the reading that best supports the chiasticity of the lines, the scholars lack agreement, meaning the primary reading is indeterminate.

בַּזֶּרֶת—With regard to the second variant, MT attests בַּזֶּרֶת (“with the span”) versus 1QIsa^a’s “with his span” (בזרתו). It is unknown whether or not the suffix “his” is original or whether a copyist added it via assimilation from the corresponding “in the hollow of his hands” (בשׁעלו). Assimilation is the more likely situation because of the scroll’s copyist’s tendency to harmonize the text. Rosenbloom prefers 1QIsa^a’s reading because “בזרתו is in parallel with בשועלו”³⁰ versus Koole, who rejects the suffix.³¹ Based solely on the two B lines of the chiasmus, “his hand” corresponds with “his span.”

Isaiah 44:21

44:21 וְיִשְׂרׇאֵל MT 4QIsa^b LXX | ישראל 1QIsa^a • יִשְׂרׇאֵל MT 1QIsa^a LXX | וישראל 4QIsa^b • תִנׇּשֵׁנִי MT 4QIsa^b | תשאני 1QIsa^a •

וְיִשְׂרׇאֵל—Both expressions—“Jacob and Israel” (= MT 4QIsa^b LXX) and “Jacob, Israel” (= 1QIsa^a)—work well in this chiasmus.

תִנׇּשֵׁנִי—The words “you will not be forgotten” (תנשׁני), belonging to both MT and 4QIsa^b, is a hapax legomenon, probably via √נשׁה (attested six times). The root sense means “to forget” in both Hebrew and Aramaic.³² 1QIsa^a’s תשאני may originate from √נשׂא (“to lift, carry”) or √נשׁא (“to deceive”), although it is possible that 1QIsa^a’s scribe intended √נשׁה, “to forget.” North is partial to √נשׁא(“to deceive”), and translates, “you must not play false with me, Israel.”³³ Not only does MT’s reading make sense, but “you will not be forgotten” forms a textbook example of a chiasmus because “not be forgotten” parallels “remember.”

Isaiah 51:7

51:7 וּמִגִּדֻּפֹתׇם MT | ומ^מגדפותם 1QIsa^a 1QIsa^b (וממגדפתם) •

וּמִגִּדֻּפֹתׇם —MT reads “their revilings” (וּמִגִּדֻּפֹתׇם), a non-absolute hapax legomenon from וּגִּדּוּפׇה, preceded by the preposition מִן. 1QIsa^b attests “those who revile them” (וממגדפתם), with the double mêm, which suggests the reading of the piʿel ptc. מְגַדֵּף (e.g., Num 15:30; Ps 44:17), also prefaced by the preposition מִן. 1QIsa^a apparently first read ומגדפותם (= MT) but a subsequent hand added a second mêm, thus reading ומ^מגדפותם (= 1QIsa^b). Additionally, Barthélemy points out that it is “likely that the repetition of the mem in [the two Qumran scrolls] was an attempt to assimilate the rare form of MT to a more common form.”³⁴ Either reading is possible (MT or the scrolls), although the grammatically structured chiasmus seems to favor MT’s noun (גִּדּוּפׇה): “Do not fear the reproach [noun] of man, and of their revilings [noun] do not be dismayed.”

Isaiah 53:7

53:7 לַטֶּבַח MT | לטבוח 1QIsa^a 1QIsa^b • וּכְרׇחֵל MT 1QIsa^b (וכר֯[חל) LXX | כרחל 1QIsa^a • יִפְתַּח² MT | פתח 1QIsa^a •

לַטֶּבַח—The verb √טבח does not appear in MT Isaiah, but the masculine singular noun טבח occurs four times (34:2, 6; 53:7; 65:12). For three out of those four occurrences, 1QIsa^a sets forth a deviation. In Isaiah 53:7, MT has a masculine singular noun (“slaughter”) versus the qal infinitive construct (“to slaughter”) of both 1QIsa^a and 1QIsa^b (cf., Jer 11:19, וַאֲנִי כְּכֶבֶשׂ אַלּוּף יוּבַל לִטְבוֹחוֹח). The deviation is not consequential to the chiastic structure.

יִפְתַּח²—With regard to the verbs of the two “A” lines, MT’s imperfect verb (יִפְתַּח) corresponds with the same imperfect in the first line of the chiasmus, versus 1QIsa^a, which has a perfect verb in line four. 1QIsa^a likely is in error.

Isaiah 55:8–9

55:8 מַחְשְׁבֹותַי מַחְשְׁבֹותֵיכֶם MT 1QIsa^a LXX (αἱ βουλαί μου ὥσπερ αἱ βουλαὶ ὑμῶν) | מ֯[חשבת]י֯כם מחשבתי 1QIsa^b •

מַחְשְׁבֹותַי מַחְשְׁבֹותֵיכֶם—Both MT and 1QIsa^a present a chiasmus of pronominal suffixes: my, your, your, my, thus reading: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways.” Contrast this with 1QIsa^b’s reading of מ֯[חשבת]י֯כם מחשבתי, which presents an a b a′ b′ ordering of the suffixes: your, my, your, my: “For your thoughts are not my thoughts, nor are your ways my ways.” Compare also v. 9: “so my ways are higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

55:9 גׇבְהוּ¹ MT 1QIsa^b | כגובה 1QIsa^a | ὡς ἀπέχει LXX •

גׇבְהוּ¹—For the first attestation of גׇבְהוּ in MT, 1QIsa^a attests כגובה, with the preposition kāp, which serves as a comparative. Kutscher supports MT,³⁵ but some earlier critics prefer to read כִּי כִגְבֹהַּ (“avec les versions et Ps. 103,11”).³⁶ The expression in Ps 103:11 (עַל־הׇאׇרֶץ שׇׁמַיִם כִגְבֹהַּ כִּי) is similar to the opening words of 55:9. For the preposition belonging to 1QIsa^a and LXX, see the comments at 29:9.

With the plus of the preposition kāp in line three, 1QIsa^a has either facilitated the text (i.e., made the comparative explicit) or has experienced dittography, כיא כגובה. Note also that the preposition kāp is lacking in the fifth line of the chiasmus, where “higher” appears the second time.

Isaiah 56:9–12

56:9 חַיְתֹו . . . חַיְתֹו שׇׂדׇי MT 1QIsa^b (חייתו . . . חיתו שדי֯) | חיות . . . חיות שדה 1QIsa^a LXX • כׇּל MT 1QIsa^b LXX | וכול 1QIsa^a •

חַיְתֹו . . . חַיְתֹו שׇׂדׇי—MT uses rare forms (“archaic case ending,”³⁷ cf. בְּבְּנֹו בְעֹר, “the son of Beor,” Num 24:15) in this expression—חַיְתֹו (bis) and שׇׂדׇי—versus 1QIsa^a’s facilitated (or modernized) reading (חיות . . . חיות שדה). Further, the scroll reads the plural “beasts”; LXX also has the plural.

56:10 צׇפוּ MT^ket | צֹפׇיו MT^qere 1QIsa^a (צופיו) | ἴδετε LXX • > MT 1QIsa^b | המה 1QIsa^a • םיִִזֹה MT 1QIsa^b | םיזוח 1QIsa^a MT^mss LXX (ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι) α′ σ′ Vulg. (videntes vana) •

צׇפוּ—MT^ket is vocalized to read as a qal verb (via √צפה), although MT^qere and 1QIsa^a read צֹפׇיו (“his watchmen”); the difference between צפו and צפיו is a yôd (fundamentally an orthographic deviation). Note that LXX (ἴδετε) reads the Hebrew as an imperative, = צִפוּ.

לׇנוּם . . . הֹזִים—These two words from MT 1QIsa^b are from √הזה (a hapax legomenon, meaning uncertain, perhaps a dog “panting in its sleep,”³⁸ “babbling,” or “drowsing”³⁹) and √נוס (“to slumber”). The verse may be translated as “His watchmen are all blind, they are all without knowledge, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark, they are panting in their sleep, lying down, loving to slumber.” 1QIsa^a renders the two words under discussion similarly—חוזים . . . לנואם (“seers”). The difference between the deviations may be explained by hê/ḥêt (חוזים/הזים) confusion for the first word and an elision of the ’ālep (לׇנוּם/לנואם) for the second. For MT’s reading of √חזה, Kutscher holds this to be the primary reading—a hapax legomenon;⁴⁰ and the reading of the scroll is a simplification, reading a popular word for a difficult term. Contrast Kutscher with Döderlein, who proposed reading חזים.⁴¹

Or there may exist here two genuine variant readings. If the two words from the Qumran scroll are from √חזה (“to envision, to see”) and √נאם (“to utter a prophecy”; cf. וַיִּנְאֲמוּ in Jer 23:31), then the verse may be rendered “His watchmen are all blind, they are all without knowledge, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark, they are seers, lying down, loving to utter prophecy.” Lying down (שוכבים) may be a reference to the prophets’ practice of incubation. The rendering of this passage by 1QIsa^a establishes that the watchmen who are blind are none other than the seers who utter prophecies. It is difficult to know whether or not we have in these two words inadvertent scribal errors or textual variants, although scribal errors is the most probable explanation.

56:11 רֹעִים MT 1QIsa^b | הרועים 1QIsa^a | πονηροὶ LXX Tg. Syr. •

רֹעִים—The three Hebrew witnesses, MT, 1QIsa^a, and 1QIsa^b, followed by Vulg., attest “shepherds” via √רעה. With an article attached to shepherds (הרועים), 1QIsa^a has a minor variant. This article, together with the m. pl. ptc., corresponds (harmonizes?) to the plural noun and article of line one of the bicolon, thus reading “the dogs . . . the shepherds.” Or, as Paul has written, the “initial heh of הרֹעִים was omitted in the MT as the result of haplography.”⁴² LXX Syr. Tg. have a divergent text, reading √רעע (“to be evil”) in place of the root רעה. Even as “evil” fits the context quite nicely, it is incorrect.

56:12 וְנִסְבְּאׇה . . . אֶקְחׇה MT 1QIsa^b (ונסבאה . . . אקח) | ונסבה . . . ונקח 1QIsa^a • וְהׇיׇה MT 1QIsa^b | ויהי 1QIsa^a • יֹום MT 1QIsa^b (י]ו֯ם֯]) | היום 1QIsa^a • מׇחׇר MT | ומחר 1QIsa^a •

אֶקְחׇה—There are three Hebrew deviations, MT אֶקְחׇה; 1QIsa^b אקח; and 1QIsa^a ונקח. Some two decades before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, Kennedy pointed out that in “some old Semitic alphabets,” the similarity of the form of the characters א and נ sometimes caused confusion in the manuscript; therefore, Kennedy proposed that MT’s אקחה read נקחה (which is the reading of 1QIsa^a), “that this may harmonize with the succeeding plural form נִסְבְּאׇה.”⁴³ Too, Oort emended MT to readונקחה^.44 Contrast Kennedy with Abegg, who proposes that “1QIsa^a and MT probably reflect two early exegetical solutions to the harder text of 1QIsa^b. The fact that the scribe of 1QIsa^b normally lengthened first person imperfects argues for the originality of its reading. It is also difficult to imagine how the first plural would have developed from a first singular in this context.”⁴⁵ Barthélemy follows MT, contending that MT is supported by 1QIsa^b, and also that 1QIsa^a’s reading of ונקח is an assimilation of ונסבה (ונסבאה), located two words later.⁴⁶

Isaiah 60:1–3

60:3 לְנֹגַהּ MT | לנגד 1QIsa^a | τῇ λαμπρότητί σου LXX •

לְנֹגַהּ—The reading לנגד of 1QIsa^a (“in front of”) may be an error (but cf. Tg. לׇקֳבֵיל). The dālet is sizable compared to the copyist’s usual bookhand (cf. the dālet of וכבודו on the same line) and the dālet’s thickness and unusual shape suggests that it was written over another letter. Conceivably, a scribe of 1QIsa^a text miswrote a dālet for the hê, thus resulting in לנגד (“in front of”). Furthermore, 1QIsa^a’s reading disturbs a classic chiastic structure, where in MT’s לְנֹגַהּ (“brightness”) corresponds with “shine” in the B and B′ lines.

Conclusion

I have examined textual variants in sixteen chiastic structures in Isaiah’s text. Many of the variants are consequential, consisting of content words, pluses, minuses, and changes; other variants are minor and pertain to conjunctions, the particle את, articles, prepositions, paragogic nûn, directional hê, and the like.

The textual variants in the chiasmus structures may be categorized into three groups:

1. Scribal errors. I have identified a number of possible errors conducted by a copyist or copyists of the Great Isaiah Scroll. These include haplography, assimilation or harmonization, dittography, accidental omission of a letter, confusion of the graphic set hê/ḥêt (הזים/חוזים), elision of the ʾālep, change from a hipʿil to a hopʿal verb, plus others.

2. Euphemism. Citing Megillah 25b, I referred to the existence of a well-known euphemism in Isa 13:16, wherein MT refers to women being “violated” versus the scroll referring to women being “lain with.”

3. Indeterminate readings. Several of the variants are indeterminate to the point that textual critics have opposing views regarding which Hebrew witness provides the primary reading, MT or 1QIsa^a. For example, Isa 34:5 sets forth deviations with regard to the verb that accompanies “sword.” Did the primary reading set forth “my sword is saturated” or “my sword will appear”? For this reading, MT presents the lectio difficilior (√רוה “to be saturated, to drink”) and it is likely that a copyist of the 1QIsa^a tradition facilitated the text. A second example is located in Isa 40:12, where the variant “waters” (MT) stands against “waters of the sea” (1QIsa^a). This is most likely an example of textual fusion or a misdivision of the text.

After an examination of textual variants in sixteen chiastic structures, it is evident that ten of the structures present textual variants that impact the structure or clarity of the chiasmus. They are Isa 2:3–5; 6:7; 6:10; 11:4; 11:8; 13:16; 29:14; 44:21; 53:7; and 60:1–3.